A German woman lost a couple hundred pounds, and wanted the baggy extra skin on her chest smoothed out by a surgeon.

But when she woke up after the operation she found doctors had put two silicone implants into her breasts, increasing their size from a C cup to a D.

Doctors said the woman should not complain as the best way to tighten the skin and remove the wrinkles was to make her breasts bigger.

Well of course they'd say it's 'the best way.' Coincidentally, it's the easy way, too.
And they're seemingly knocking her for ingratitude. That's the crunchy almond in the nougat, right there. Nice balls, guys. Take a bow.

Thanks to PJ Momma.

Posted by: LauraW at 10:53 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

It's like every other episode of SuperFriends where the Legion of Doom would undo its own scheme through infighting and bickering over Solomon Grundy's smell, Grodd's need to wear pants of some sort to cover his genitals, and which super-villainess had been wearing Riddler's tights for Pilates workouts.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

At Cuffy's. He works for the business so everything he says is total bullshit, but he does have nice pictures demonstrating how this so-called "Missile" "defense" "system" would work, if it could work, which of course it can't.

Ed Morrissey notes that NATO just chumped Barack Obama, who recently called such systems "unproven" and also "deeply gay."

Not sure about that last quote, but he did call for slashing missile defense budgeting.

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the many perplexities of "progressive" thought is that it contains so many internal contradictions that it defies consistent application, and yet this doesn't seem to bother adherents. That kind of who-do-you-think-you're-kidding logic was on display yesterday in the NY Times editorial, which championed a decidedly unprogressive course of action:

Illegal immigration, it turns out, is even better than legal immigration. In the fine print of the 2008 annual report on Social Security, released last week, the program’s trustees noted that growing numbers of “other than legal” workers are expected to bolster the program over the coming decades.

One reason is that many undocumented workers pay taxes during their work lives but don’t collect benefits later. Another is that undocumented workers are entering the United States at ever younger ages and are expected to have more children while they’re here than if they arrived at later ages. The result is a substantial increase in the number of working-age people paying taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirees who receive benefits — a double boon to Social Security’s bottom line.

The most obvious problem with this line of argument is that we are expected to agree that the exploitation of an already-marginalized group of people is a good thing. Somehow, in the liberal mind, if we take money from illegal aliens and give nothing back, it's not robbery. More than that, we are expected to agree that perhaps illegal immigration should be allowed to continue...so we can use illegal labor to shore up our crumbling social insurance programs.

This is quite simply an outrageous suggestion. Look, I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't withhold payroll taxes from workers who use fake or stolen Social Security numbers. The illegal worker signed up for that deal, he has no grounds to complain. But I am saying that it is patently immoral to advocate for the status quo and downright disgusting to argue that the status quo is good because it lets us steal from people who already live on the margins of society.

The "progressive" faces an irreconcilable dilemma. They believe that illegal immigrants are deserving of all the rights and protections of legal immigrants, or at least of temporary workers. But they also believe that Social Security is an integral and inviolate part of our government's obligations to U.S. citizens. In this case, Social Security trumps human rights. But the really inexplicable thing is that it doesn't have to. Why is the Times arguing for the status quo?

The Progressive Order:

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:38 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

Partially deafened her, to be precise, but it's a serious impairment.

It's a much more poignant story than a listing of the dead; as they say, dead men tell no tales. The survivors do.

But if the physical aspects of hearing loss are challenging, the mental and emotional impact has been devastating. I am isolated. The heart of the social scene in Jerusalem is the Shabbat meal, and the heart of the Shabbat meal is the conversation. I cannot participate in these conversations anymore because I cannot hear well enough to follow. Even if I try to speak only with the person next to me, the conversation tends to be somewhat stilted as the buzz of the surrounding conversations impedes my ability to hear the person I am speaking with. The same limitation applies to virtually every social situation involving group conversations, be it chatting with people after services when everyone gathers outside the synagogue to shmooze, going out with friends to a café or even just having a simple get-together in someone's living room. Sure I can participate, so long as no one minds if I interrupt the flow of the conversation every 5 seconds to ask “What? What?” And that is assuming that the language being spoken is English. If the conversation is in Hebrew…well, forget about it.

There is really nothing I can do about the situation, and so more and more, I find myself sitting quietly and saying nothing. What is the point? I do not even sing anymore. For those of you unfamiliar with Shabbat meals, it is the tradition to sing songs during the meal. However, when I sing now, I cannot hear the other singers, making it impossible for me to sing with them. Sometimes I mouth the words. More often, I do not bother.

As a result, those who have met me at group events since the bombing would probably describe me as quiet and shy. And indeed, I have become shy. I no longer feel comfortable engaging new people in conversations. Admittedly, even before the bombing I lacked self-confidence with Israelis, but now I feel that way with everyone. I feel stupid, awkward, tongue-tied and boring. The fact that I am self-conscious about my looks does not help, of course. So now, when I go to group events, I no longer try to meet new people. Instead, I hang out with the people I know. If I do not know anyone, I find a corner and sit there quietly with a vague and hopefully pleasant expression on my face, catching conversations as I can, and waiting for the time that I can escape and go home.

A couple weeks ago, I was invited to a Shabbat meal hosted by an retired couple that makes a habit of inviting singles to join them for meals. The guests included a married couple, myself and four other singles my age, —two women and two men—and like me English speaking immigrants. The two women were well dressed, well spoken, attractive, and exuded intelligence and confidence. Then there was me: scars on my face which I have yet to figure out how to cover, bad hair, a stupid looking headband, glasses, and of course, half deaf. The other guests were soon engaged in an animated conversation. I could not follow. What was I supposed to do? Stand up and scream that I may look like shit and be deaf as a doorknob, but hey, behind it all is intelligent, interesting, witty person? Hell, I do not know that I believe that myself. I did try. I made an attempt to talk to the guy next to me, but I could think of nothing to say aside from “oh, you are from Toronto? What a beautiful city”.

Oh yeah! That is some witty and intelligent conversation there! My, I must be the world's biggest dolt.

Maybe I am imagining things? Maybe I was always this boring, this retreating, this shy, this tongue-tied? Why do I feel like I was been transformed into someone else? I know I used to be too aggressive, and too argumentative, but I toned that down a bit and learned to be nicer. I know I used to feel stupid with Israelis, but I thought that was just with Israelis, and that it was because of the language barrier. Was I always like this? I couldnÂ’t have been. There is no way I could have as involved as I was in D.C., had as many friends as I did in D.C., if I were really like this. I keep trying to remind myself of that.

Thanks to Alice H.

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

Hot Air has a couple of the clips. I'll post the one Allah didn't.

Cuffy tipped me to this last night but damnit, my DVR didn't record it. Ah, well. Comedy Central is scheduled to rerun it sixty-seven billion times, along with thirty three trillion re-airings of the Friar's Club Roast of Zbignew Brezinsky.

Below, Butters doing "What What in the Butt."
more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:07 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 130 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny stuff. Girlfriend plays prank, if you can call it that, on dude. Second vid is dude's revenge.

Fake? Possibly they had it worked out before that they would do this sort of stuff at unexpected moments, but I don't think it's fake in the moment itself. Seems like real provocations and real reactions.

Thanks to Phin. more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:54 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Take heart morons! You know all that talk about women wanting impossibly long sex sessions (aka, anything more than 10 minutes)? Pure BS. Don't take my word for it, it's science!

Maybe men had it right all along: It doesn't take long to satisfy a woman in bed. A survey of sex therapists concluded the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes. The findings, to be published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, strike at the notion that endurance is the key to a great sex life.

If that sounds like good news to you, don't cheer too loudly. The time does not count foreplay, and the therapists did rate sexual intercourse that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes as "too short."

...Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, cited a four-week study of 1,500 couples in 2005 that found the median time for sexual intercourse was 7.3 minutes. (Women were armed with stopwatches.)

It's difficult for both older men and young men to make sexual intercourse last much longer, said Marianne Brandon, a clinical psychologist and director of Wellminds Wellbodies in Annapolis, Md.

"There are so many myths in our culture of what other people are doing sexually," Brandon said. "Most people's sex lives are not as exciting as other people think they are."

Okay, so the 1 to 2 minutes part still leaves some of you in a world of hurt but hey, ratcheting that up to an acceptable 3 to 4 minutes is a lot more realistic than some ridiculous time like 9 minutes. Keep hope alive kids!

Of course, we are all still looking forward to the day when non-judgmental, fully functional (sex and a sammich) sexbots are available.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:47 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

Watch a true professional political analyst lay out the scenario that gets her the nomination. Its going to be hard work, with many setbacks, but its looking like a lock to me. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 04:54 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently Google couldn't find jobs for them at Google. Which means Google is maxed out and there may be some Google cuts lurking over the horizon.

...The cuts represent about a quarter of DoubleClickÂ’s American work force of about 1,200. The company has about 1,500 employees worldwide, and the chief executive of Google, Eric E. Schmidt, has suggested that job cuts would also affect DoubleClickÂ’s overseas operations at a later date...

Tom Phillips, director of DoubleClick integration at Google, wrote on the company’s official blog. “At Google, maintaining objectivity in both search and advertising is paramount to our mission and core to the trust we ask from our users.”

Remember folks -- "Don't be evil". Its OK to carry water for and provide cover for evil, just don't pull the trigger yourself cuz that gets messy and involves dumping bodies and other shit that looks a lot like real work. That Google would have bought DoubleClick, one of the most detested privacy invading presences on the internet, doesn't seem surprising at all.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 04:36 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.